Letters to the editor

Published
4:00 am PDT, Saturday, June 26, 2010

C.W. Nevius is irresponsible to even suggest that our children in need are "saturated" with services ("Saturated with services - some have to go," June 24). Doesn't he know an increasing number of families have to choose between safe care for their children and paying rent? Or that so many youths are exposed to violence that schools must learn to treat post-traumatic stress syndrome?

Nevius scolds us to "take a hard-eyed look" at our service delivery system and its duplications. Fine! I've looked and seen literally thousands of children in San Francisco on waiting lists for child care, after-school slots, jobs, summer educational programs and mental health services.

It is one thing to recommend that budget cuts be made as wisely as possible. It is quite another to ridicule those in need. The real reason we are in an economic fix is the criminality of Wall Street - not the "overload" of services.

Margaret Brodkin, former director, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families

Unfair comparison

C.W. Nevius' article on the budget unfairly compares San Francisco's spending with that of other counties.

In all of California, only San Francisco is both a city and a county. Its $6.48 billion budget reflects both county and city expenditures. He compares San Francisco spending on mental health with San Mateo County, one of the wealthiest counties in the country. He ignores that many nonprofits use local funds to generate federal and state funds.

For example, the agency I direct, Family Service Agency, generates $1.20 in other revenues for every $1 in county funds. According to the city's own data, the agency's programs significantly reduce arrests and the use of much more expensive emergency services for which the city ultimately would have to pay. Yet we are being asked to absorb $1 million in cuts.

Targeting the most effective nonprofit agencies in the city is certainly not the best place to look for cost savings.

Nonprofit agencies worthy of support

I appreciate C.W. Nevius' acknowledgement of limited funding for nonprofit social services in San Francisco.

I would like to extend two points for consideration: the prevalent need for support and the relative ability of nonprofits to provide competently compassionate and cost-effective services.

The fiscal imperative to cut budgets is real. Yet the same factors that reduce city coffers also spike demand from our vulnerable neighbors who need help. The issue is not whether there are too many nonprofits; it is that some people in our community do not have the financial means to meet their basic needs.

A nonprofit organization is often the best place to turn for a quality solution at lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. Not only are salary and administrative costs much lower than those of comparable government departments, but agencies like Catholic Charities CYO leverage private donations and revenue from auxiliary activities to extend and amplify the impact our services have in the community.

When faced with the difficult decisions on funding allocations, it is important to remember that nonprofit agencies provide effective and long-term services that are made possible by, and are indeed worthy of, community support.

The Chronicle has inexplicably chosen to ignore the fundamental First Amendment rights curtailed by the city attorney's opinion that I am ineligible to stand for election to a second four-year term this November ("Political math," Editorial, June 24).

An individual's right to seek office - and the right of the electorate to the representation of its choosing - is deeply embedded in the right to political expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Nearly 100 years of California Supreme Court decisions have held that the right to run for elected office is not to be curtailed in the absence of clear and explicit law. The clear and explicit language of the city charter does not prevent me or anyone else in my position from seeking a second four-year term. The charter prohibits a second four-year term only where one is "appointed to complete in excess of two years." I was appointed to serve for less than a year.

It is not the role of the city attorney - nor the editors of this paper - to attempt to divine "the intent of the voters," particularly when your interpretation of what the voters really meant deviates from the clear and explicit language that voters approved to be incorporated into our city's charter.